Curbing uncontrolled and abusive noise in entertainment and other places: Part 2 – A human rights issue

Curbing uncontrolled and abusive noise in entertainment and other places: Part 2 – A human rights issue

Published March 03, 2026

Introduction

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) is part of the laws of Malta (Chapter 319) and is applied by the Courts of Justice in Malta.  The Convention imposes on the State a positive obligation to put in place adequate legal frameworks that protect the human rights of persons, to ensure that those frameworks are effectively enforced, and to strike a fair balance between competing interests. 

Human rights law safeguards the person from disproportionate and persistent interference to his legitimate way of life.  As far as entertainment and other places are concerned, this means that if the State grants licences to establishments, tolerates amplified music without control, fails to curtail noise from becoming intense and persistent, fails to enforce licence conditions, and ignores or “looks the other way” when confronted by continuous complaints, then the matter does not remain any longer restricted within the ambit of ordinary law but raises human rights concerns. ate may find itself in breach of its positive obligation to protect the rights of people under Art 8 of the Convention. 

The  European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) treats severe, prolonged, and avoidable environmental noise, especially night time noise affecting the home, as a potential interference with, or failure to secure, Art 8 of the Convention, which in subarticle (1) states that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence”. The right to peaceful enjoyment is included within the notion of “home”. 

Moreno Gómez v Spain - (Case No. 4143/2002)
Final: 16 February 2005

Facts

In 1970, the applicant, Pilar Moreno Gómez was living in a residential area of Valencia. From 1974 onwards, the municipality authorised nightlife venues (bars/pubs/discotheques) close to her home. The resulting night time noise made rest “impossible” for her and other residents.  In later years local authorities officially designated the area as an “acoustically saturated zone” due to intense nightlife activity.  In 1983, the municipality decided not to authorise further venues in the area, but new licenses were nevertheless granted. Despite existing municipal noise regulations, and despite official decibel limits acknowledged excessive noise levels, the authorities failed to enforce regulations effectively.  Night-time noise from bars and clubs repeatedly exceeded permitted limits. The applicant complained without meaningful remedy. 

Art 8 of the Convention

The applicant requested protection under Art 8.

The question was whether failure by the State to control nightlife noise violated the right to respect of applicant for her home and private life in terms of Art 8 of the Convention.

Considerations

The Court considered the alleged failure of the State to take action against third party noise and therefore non-compliance with the positive obligation of the State to take reasonable and adequate measures in accordance with Art 8. 

The Court found that, given the intensity, night time nature, repeated excesses of authorised levels, and the fact the nuisance persisted over years, the rights of applicant as provided in Art 8 had been violated.

 A central point was that the municipal administration of Valencia had adopted measures (including a by-law on noise and vibrations), which should in principle have acted as safeguards.  Nonetheless the public authority tolerated repeated disregard of its own rules. The Court stressed that laws are useless if not consistently applied and enforced.

The Court made clear the point that severe night-time noise does interfere with the enjoyment of a person’s private life and home. Even where the disturbance is caused by private business, the State must act. Existence of laws is not enough without enforcement.

The ECtHR does not require applicants to prove medical harm but evaluates whether the disturbance is sufficiently serious and avoidable on the basis of objective data to determine severity.   In fact, well established public health evidence can help explain why certain sound levels, especially at night, are incompatible with effective home life. The Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region of the WHO (2018) were developed to provide evidence based recommendations to protect health from noise including leisure noise.

Outcome 

The question is not doing away with nightlife. The Court did not say that nightlife is incompatible with human rights.  However, what the Court said is that the State must regulate and enforce its laws in a manner that protects residents from disproportionate harm.  Therefore, States must strike a fair balance between economic activity and the rights of residents. Where authorities acknowledge serious nuisance and allow systematic non compliance, the “fair balance” requirement is not met.  The Court found against Spain and was ordered to pay applicant damages and costs. 

Importance

The outcome of this judgement stands.

Cuenca Zarzoso v. Spain - (Case No. 23383/12)
Final: 16 April 2018 

This judgement confirmed Moreno Gómez v Spain

Conclusion

In Malta regular (not exceptional) nightlife establishments are licenced to operate close to residential areas.

Public authorities know and acknowledge excessive noise.  Residents complain without effective remedy.

Whatever decisions they take (administrative or otherwise) public bodies should keep these judgements under careful consideration and act accordingly.